Fashion Law 101: The trademark troubles, trials, and tribulations in store for F**k Yeah Menswear

"Fashion Law 101" is the not-very-creative tag LAW OF FASHION has given to posts that discuss basic principles of fashion law. (See "Topics," directly to the right of this post.) There haven't been many additions to LOF's "Fashion Law 101" database lately, because LOF tried to cover foundational topics in copyright and trademark law early on in the life of the blog... and also because, yes, this writer has another job. However, a story on Racked.com this morning presented the perfect opportunity for a risqué addition to the Fashion Law 101 vault. As Racked reported, the successful stream-of-consciousness Tumblr Fuck Yeah Menswear has scored a book deal.

LAW OF FASHION congratulates the blog's owner, but LOF is also worried about his or her trademark rights. (Longtime readers might recall that LOF has expressed concern about the intellectual property rights of people in the news before.) Why, you might wonder, is LOF so anxious?

As the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure ("TMEP") explains, the predecessor of the current Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit adopted the following dictionary definition of "scandalous": "shocking to the sense of propriety, offensive to the conscience or moral feelings or calling out for condemnation." Courts have further interpreted the word "scandalous" to include proposed marks that are "vulgar," i.e., "lacking in taste, indelicate, [or] morally crude." Thus, the statutory bar has prevented the federal registration of such racy trademarks as:

BLACK TAIL (for adult magazine featuring women of color)

DICK HEADS (where phrase appeared beneath caricature of a human head made to look like male genitalia)

ACAPULCO GOLD (for suntan lotion, even though some might understand the term as a reference to marijuana)

WEEK-END SEX (for magazines whose content was not part of the evidentiary record)

BIG PECKER BRAND (when accompanied by the picture of a woodpecker, which, in the court's view, "ma[de] it less likely that purchasers would attribute any vulgar connotations to the work mark")

As for the good old F-word, a quick search in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's TESS database indicates that 68 applications to register marks that included the word "fuck" have been submitted to the USPTO -- none of which resulted in a registration. Not great odds for Fuck Yeah Menswear.

Naturally, where the government puts itself in the position of making decisions about what is or isn't "scandalous," many people's internal First Amendment alarm goes off (as mine did here and here.) While the Supreme Court has never squarely addressed the intersection of the First Amendment and trademark law's "immoral or scandalous" bar to registration, applicants' arguments about the unconstitutional abridgement of speech under the statute have been repeatedly rejected by the Federal Circuit and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, as the latter observed in a 2008 case called In re Heeb Media LLC. (In that case, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to register "HEEB" in connection with apparel and entertainment services, due to the derogatory connotation that the term continues to carry for many Jewish people -- even if, as the court noted, younger Jews have reappropriated the term. Heeb Media also illustrates the principle that the USPTO will refuse to register and/or will cancel registrations for marks that disparage identifiable groups of people -- the central issue in a seemingly never-ending court battle between a group of Native Americans and the Washington Redskins. But LOF will circle back to discuss that subject in greater detail when some juicy piece of fashion law news makes it more topical.)

Of course, unlike in the copyright context, one can sue for the infringement of an unregistered trademark, subject to certain caveats LOF will have to address at a later date. But legal complications aside, just as a matter of common sense, judges won't be especially inclined to grant relief to the owners of marks that they find morally objectionable. The lesson: it's generally wise to start one's business off on the right foot by choosing a mark that isn't likely to offend anyone.

[This post is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship among any individuals or entities. Any views expressed herein are those of the writer on the particular date of this post, and should not necessarily be attributed to his law firm or its clients.]

NOTHING IN THIS BLOG CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE, and the information contained herein should never be used as a substitute for consulting a lawyer. Use of this blog does not form an attorney-client relationship among anyindividuals or entities. While the administrators of "LAW OF FASHION" endeavor to ensure the accuracy of all posts, and will promptly correct inaccuracies brought to their attention, no warranty is made as to the thoroughness or accuracy of any blog content. Users of this site release and hold harmless Charles Colman Law, PLLC and all related individuals and entities for any information collected regarding visitors to this site or charlescolmanlaw.com, as well as for any other harm resulting from visitors' use of this site or charlescolmanlaw.com. The views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Charles Colman Law, PLLC, or its clients.

The maintenance of this site, including the collection and creation of its content, is a service offered in conjunction with: